Category: Anti-Gun Folks

Did I leave anyone out?

It seems like Max Nacheman is out to rebrand the anti-gun movement into one big happy family – or at least laugh all the way to the bank on every group’s dime. First, he was on the payroll of MAIG while also speaking to policymakers as a representative of the Brady Campaign. Now, Max has taken over the head of CeaseFirePA since its leader decided to throw in the towel and make a run for local office.

His group is now merged with Moms Against Guns which scammed Clear Channel’s outdoor advertising department by misrepresenting their tax status to get free billboard space that they used for political advocacy when it was slotted for charitable organizations. Only he found their name to be a liability. On their site, the text references to Moms Against Guns have been changed to Moms Against (Illegal) Guns. Not that a name change should matter since Moms Against Guns was never legally registered as a charitable organization. I also find it funny that in taking over the Moms Against Guns website, they Photoshopped the word “illegal” onto the logo and, I guess, hope that no one notices that they never made the distinction between illegal and legal guns before.

CeaseFirePA has also recently donated some of their front page space to promote the MAIG petition for growing their email list restricting gun shows. The same front page also touts the group’s recent Joyce grant to pay Max’s salary grow their “grassroots.”

I guess when the folks in charge of the finances finally find someone who is willing to throw their entire career to a cause that continues to lose at nearly every turn, all the groups will jump up to pay him to keep on trying for something.

(Photo courtesy of reader Adam Z.)

Apparently our opponents think some forms of asking and telling are just fine. Actually, I have no real problems with Ask Day. I’m not against our opponents using social pressure to achieve their policy goals. In a free society, shame is really what should keep people in line, rather than governmental fiats. The real reason the gay rights movement has won is because they removed the shame in it, no matter how badly social conservatives might try to reassert it.

I view this similarly to conservative efforts to shame homosexuality. I am not supportive of such efforts, but I still believe they have a right to do it. Strangely enough, despite my opinions favoring gay marriage and favoring non-discrimination in sexual orientation — when it comes to the military, I’m not quite as much of a cheerleader. The military currently segregates men and women because there’s an understanding that sexual issues can be problematic in a military environment, where intimate living arrangements can be the rule rather than the exception.

That said, I’m not in favor of DADT because the military has demonstrated they can’t help but abuse the policy. I can understand how sexual issues could come into play where intimate living conditions are the norm, but there have been enough cases of the military drumming gays out of the service just for the sake of doing so that I can no longer support this policy.

Apparently our opponents do not wish to take this kind of approach, because when it comes to supporting enumerated constitutional freedoms, they let their own ignorance rule. I have no problems with parents asking other parents about guns in the house, but if in that same sentence they aren’t also asking about swimming pools and dangerous household chemicals, they are being naive in their duties. Statistically all those things kill more kids by accident than firearms do.

Joan Peterson is currently in hysterics over the fact that a man running for Congress in the 8th Congressional District of Arizona, which also happens to be Gabby Gifford’s district, is featuring a picture of his service where he is carrying a rifle:

Says Ms. Peterson:

Why does he need to run an ad with a poster showing himself with an assault weapon and calling himself a “Warrior”? Is this some sort of code to the extreme conservatives and gun rights activists?

I’ve largely grown bored with our favorite Brady Board member, but every once in a while I run across something so completely nuts I just have no choice but to share. I will admit to not getting an updated secret decoder ring from the NRA in some time, but going out on a limb here I am fairly certain there is no code.

What we have before us is a politician who is a United States Marine who served in Iraq. He would like potential voters to know about his service, so he puts pictures up of him soldiering on his campaign material. I know this is a shocking revelation, but soldiering generally involves carrying a rifle. Not only rifles, but real, honest to goodness select-fire full-auto capable assault rifles. Soldiers also, fairly commonly, refer to themselves as “warriors.” I know that’s hard to believe, but trust me, it’s true.

Surely the Brady Campaign is not now embracing the position that we ought to disarm our military? Surely they do not take the position that there is something wrong with Marines being proud of their service, or having to hide their service, because one of the tools they use to protect freedom is a firearm?

I show this only to point out how far outside the mainstream the leadership of the anti-gun movement truly is. Soldiers carrying guns… well, that’s just icky.

So says a spokesman for Oakland, California schools. We would ordinarily call these individuals hypocrites, in addition to people who lack judgement. I’m sure the teacher and counselor will be out of a job as a result of this. As soon to be freshly minted gun criminals, I would encourage them to apply or a position at the Brady Campaign, since it’s hard to see how this particular lapse in judgement is any worse than what Plaxico Burriss did.

Noting that Plaxico got pinched by likely unconstitutional laws that Brady support:

I find this very much like a person of color married to a Caucasian getting a divorce and supporting a white separatist group after getting beat up by members of the KKK for their choice of marriage partners.

Pretty much. I greatly disapprove of Burris’ choices in regards to his methods of carry, but in a just world he would have gotten a fine for carrying irresponsibly (no holster and drinking) and that would have been the end of it. He only hurt himself. Had he hurt someone else I would suggest the law could apply more sanctions for hurting someone else with his own responsibility.

The Brady Campaign is now joining Coalition to Ban Handguns in their desire to see the attention shifted away from a large government-sponsored gun running scandal onto Congressman Issa and the need for new gun control laws:

It’s never been more obvious what a scam their phony concern about “gun violence” is. They don’t give a crap about gun violence. All they care about is restricting the 2A to the greatest extent possible.

As Cam Edwards is actively pointing out as I’m writing this, there’s no amount of new gun laws that’s going to help if the federal government is actively encouraging their undermining.

I’m astonished to see Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, trying to help ATF and the Administration find political cover over the Fast and Furious scandal. Again, I remain very skeptical that this organization cares a whit about stopping gun violence, or they’d be just as outraged at this practice as we are:

Understand what was going on here. There were multiple dealers along the border who did not want to make sales to people those dealers knew to be trafficking in guns illegally, but yet were told to allow those sales to proceed by the ATF. One or more of those guns was used in the murder of a Border Patrol Agent, and countless numbers are no doubt murdering people in Mexico. CSGV’s attempts to focus this issue back on Issa, off ATF, and onto our gun laws is not only dishonest, it’s disgusting for a group that properties to care about stopping gun violence.

This kind of attitude clearly shows that Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is an utter fraud. If they really cared about gun violence they’d certainly want to get to the bottom of what is, to give ATF/DOJ leadership more benefit of doubt than they probably deserve, employment of highly questionable law enforcement tactics that have lead to the death of individuals.

CSGV would do well to understand we have a right to own guns in this country. That necessarily takes a lot of their preferred policy prescriptions off the table. That’s a hard pill for them to swallow but it is a fact. If they truly want to be about preventing gun violence, they would be helping to understand what truly happened. But as it is, they are still living in the past, and perpetrating the fraud that they care about gun violence, rather than gun control.

John Richardson highlights some new research by Garen Wintermute showing that gun owners are disproportionately drunks. What does it say about what kind of culturally condescending bigot you are when you even do major research to ask that kind of question? Did Wintermute ever perhaps consider that alcohol consumption was more tied to income? We know that income and gun ownership correlate. Both hooch and guns are something that takes a certain amount of income to partake in. But obviously, here, the goal is to show most gun owners are too irresponsible to be so.

There’s a candidate running in California with this as a major platform. To be honest, these folks don’t annoy me that much because they at least recognize the Second Amendment as an obstacle. They are at least honest in what needs to be done. Suggesting we need to repeal the Second Amendment is at least taking the Constitution and the Bill of Rights seriously, even if I might believe repealing the Second Amendment would disparage the document.

At your leg, because you decided to stupidly Mexican carry a Glock in your sweat pants to a New York night club and drink, without a license to do so. Apparently that makes you qualified to help our opponents. Next time our opponents try to tell you we’re in league with gun criminals, throw this in their faces.